Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Teachers’ union refuse to ask district central legal questions for required EUAs, refuse to answer same questions from me, then declare my employee grievance void (31 of ?) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Teachers’ union refuse to ask district central legal questions for required EUAs, refuse to answer same questions from me, then declare my employee grievance void (31 of ?)

Perhaps the most helpful communication is a summary of events to the most recent article, the specific updates when they occurred, and preview of coming events (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31).

This is my best “shot” to explain, document, and prove the “Covid” + “vaccine” narrative are Crimes Against Humanity: a 4,700-word essay I sent to ~100 teacher colleagues.

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” we were all told were necessary to “flatten the curve and keep hospitals running” have lasted since March 3, 2020. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) is derived from California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Because Californians never received comprehensive hospital data, our government and corporate media “leaders” are lying in omission. Because problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals, our leaders lie in commission. All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic.”

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I inquired to our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limits to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions. I reminded the district I merely ask them as educated professional adults to perform what we expect from all our Californian Middle School students in our State teaching standards: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and that employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” under threat of being terminated. I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in our US History classes that the district’s position of “just following orders” is an illegal defense, and asked again how ESA limits are being honored.

After continued district silence, I filed three legal complaints: federal, state, and a grievance for district violation of worker safety to support apparent dictatorial and illegal policy under direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1).

Our union responded with support to ask the district, and to communicate privately that they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because the working conditions were negotiated in good faith. The grievance process finished with district and union agreement the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance.

I appealed the district’s answer to our community school board for what the district redefined as a “written complaint.” From October 2 to December 18 2020 the district was silent, despite policy promising a response within 30 days of the board’s receipt. After this December 13 reminder they were out of compliance for a response, the superintendent answered that the school board upheld the district response without comment.

I also received a “non-response” after nearly 5 months from my complaint to the US Department of Justice regarding unlimited government. My complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint was fielded with a phone call response in December, with their promise to follow-up, and silence since then.

In March 2021, our NorCal public school superintendent sent all staff an email citing county deaths from COVID nearing 1,300 with 80,000 “cases.” He also asked for our professional responses to an upcoming survey. I responded with three basic questions: how many of our staff and students have died of (not with) Covid, what is the data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths, and how many staff and students have been injured by vaccines. He ignored my questions twice, which I then shared with our school’s ~100 teachers as Chair of a school Professional Learning Community (PLC) on broad educational topics directly affecting our school’s teaching and learning. A few teachers have communicated support, but our Social Science Department found no interest in this topic when I emailed them in inquiry.

Our district superintendent then answered my questions, and concluded with: “If you do not agree with the state and county guidelines or if you believe we are not following them, please pursue your questions and concerns with the appropriate agency.” I responded I would do so, and report my findings.

I followed up with 14 CA government agencies over 6 weeks, with all ignoring the question of how the limit of “beyond control” hospitals was being honored for “emergency” dictatorial authority, and CA Senator Glazer’s office stating the 60-day limit applied only to “non-safety” related orders. I hadn’t considered an American legislature would surrender forever dictatorial powers to a governor or elected officials without a time limit, as public recourse would be limited to recall (as is happening with Governor Newsom) or electing other legislators.

School district and CA government “answers” are therefore intentional lies of omission to claim they answered a question about ESA to “justify” dictatorial government while leaving out any consideration of crystal-clear letter and intent requiring that our hospitals are “beyond control.” The 14 CA government agencies claim dictatorial power to close businesses, stop social gatherings, force masking, force humans to forever remain no closer than six feet from each other, and with forever power until legislators or governor say otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.”

At the end of April 2021, I wrote a lengthy and fully documented report of those 14 CA government agencies’ responses, and emailed it with a cover letter to district leadership, school board members, teachers’ union leadership, our PLC members, and school teachers. The district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources immediately responded with threats of disciplinary action for unspecified violations of district policies, as did my school principal. The district has yet to respond to my questions regarding their undocumented complaints as the “foundation” to their threats.

I appealed to our teachers’ union for relief (and here, here). After 4 emails and 15 days of silence from our union President and VP, I sent this email to 14 of the Board of Directors of our teachers’ union. Our President and VP then responded for a next step “to gain clarification regarding matters within our scope and discuss next steps, if any.” We Zoom-met, and our union President met with district Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district emailed me claiming my PLC report somehow “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet fails again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I filed three employee grievances for apparent contract violations, with our contract requiring my silence of proceedings. On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district is again considering my Grievances as employee complaints, with HR Assistant Superintendent admitting failure to address my requests for the district to document and explain their complaints.

On July 9, 2021 our teachers’ union held a Zoom conference with ~100 teachers to explain the tentative agreement for work conditions for 2021 - ‘22 school year for staff, students, and families to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first question for our union to explain how the state has ordering authority given the strict limits of “beyond control” hospitals, with union president, VP, and another union board member responding they are still representing my question, but all legal information they’ve received is that there is no requirement to oppose ordering authority until proven in court.

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how our “health” “orders” are lawful or healthy, they will be disciplined up to termination under the “reason” that such questions “harass and/or disparage other’ political beliefs.”
On July 24 I responded to the district’s formal initiation of “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me, withdraw the complaints and censorship, or face my attorney. On July 26, the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources responded in refusal to substantiate their claims of my unprofessional work; claiming “The District has provided you with the appropriate documentation that has sufficiently responded to your requests. At this time, there is no additional information that can be provided to you that has not already been provided.” Our teachers union President called me with analysis from her conversations with district leadership that the district is unwilling to look beyond their legal orders, and must be forced by court or legislative orders.

I had a productive first conversation with an America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) connected attorney, who promised to converse with her team to evaluate my case for possible lawsuit support. I have a second conversation scheduled to hopefully initiate lawsuit against my school district (and perhaps other parties).

On September 4, 2021, I reported to my ~100 teacher colleagues my best “shot” to “red pill” them about dozens of game-changing facts corporate media will never report (my published research on corporate media “reporting” lies known to be false as they were told for the many variants of the Wars on Terror). This report to teachers (at “Update 3”) makes a great essay to share with comprehensive facts of our big picture condition (and here).

On Friday September 17, our district superintendent announced the school board will address the question of mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law. My attorneys affiliated with AFLDS are watching district and union responses with professional interest, as they choose which cases are best to vigorously pursue.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (see my essay to ~100 teachers for absolute proofs for quotation marks). The public comment session for 1-minute remarks were ~15 against and ~25 for. Four parents and two employees contacted me, and I’ve initiated our organized work including informing the 3 attorneys paying full attention to these developing cases. I’m also actively engaged in three current employee Grievances, and will give our teachers’ union an ultimatum to honor our contract that all district policies be “in conformance with law” by standing with me against the district’s illegal “mandates” that violate US Codes 21 and 18, and California Government Code 8558 (b) that “emergency orders” authority requires “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case). CDC’s latest data seem definitive proof that California and national hospitals are well within control, just as each and every one of the ~20 local doctors, nurses, and other professionals I’ve asked have told me for 20 months.

On October 2, I sent a second email to our teachers’ union President, VP, and district Board Members arguing for their legal and Oath-sworn obligation to stand with me to force the district to explain the legality of their “health” “orders” given the above crystal-clear in letter and intent legal limits (the district’s stated position is “we just follow orders, and so will you”). Parents and employees are organizing. 3 teams of AFLDS attorneys are ready to file suit(s) if this case is considered the next best landmark case to pursue.

On October 17, 2021 I sent another Professional Learning Committee (PLC) report to district and union leaderships + Boards, and ~100 teacher colleagues with two central topics. First: HUSD refuses to address limits to state/county/district “health orders” regarding required student and teacher use of Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs), despite :
Federal law Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requiring EUAs be administered only and always with “option to refuse” experimental medicine.
Article 6 of the US Constitution is explicit that federal law is superior to state law/“mandates”/“orders.”
California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 uphold federal law that every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
The second topic of the October 17 PLC report is that our teachers’ union shared their position why “health orders” to “require” EUAs is lawful: the government is not kidnapping and forcibly injecting teachers. Yes, seriously; that’s their “legal” “justification.”

On October 21, 2021, our teachers’ union president emailed me to declare my employee grievance void that requested the district to either cite their legal authority for EUA work requirements given the limits of three definitive laws, or to downgrade “requirements for employment” to “advice.” The “reason” given was the union claims that the district doesn’t have to cite legal authority for policy because any proofs of illegal policies “do not concern violations of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement)” despite the CBA stating all district policies must be “in conformance with law.” Both HEA and HUSD claim that state dictatorial “orders” are sufficient legal authority to compel obedience, and both have never addressed our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE for We the People to serve as a check on exactly this problem of illegal dictatorial government orders. My three subsequent communications to union President, VP, and Board were unanswered.

**

Update 1:

Teachers’ union President declares my grievance void that requested district explanation of policy legality beyond “just follow orders” + my three responses: My appeal to the teachers’ union Board, previous two appeals to union President, VP, and Executive Director, then the President’s email to me voiding one grievance, and maintaining an other regarding district attempted censorship of my Professional Development Committee for reporting on Covid policies’ effects on our school’s teaching and learning (doubled student failure rate):

HEA’s last chance to stand for literal truth, justice, and the American Way

Carl Herman
Mon, Oct 25, 4:57 AM (2 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (teachers’ union President, VP, Executive Director, Board)
pastedGraphic.png
Dear HEA Board,
(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) have chosen to not respond to these three obvious questions about HEA agreement to require experimental medical products used on teachers and our community’s children:
CTA (California Teachers Association) only addressed one of my three cited laws: Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), in argument that “option to refuse” only prevents kidnapping for forced injections at employers’ will, and allows all other consequences including employment termination and inability for future hire, true?
How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that EUAs (Emergency Use Authorization medical products) uphold everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision”?
How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”)?
(Union President) asserts HEA’s position is that my grievance requesting HUSD explain how their “health orders” are “in conformance to law” doesn’t concern our CBA ARTICLE 3 requiring district policies are “in conformance to law.” The reason is the above cited laws demonstrating “health orders” not in conformance to law “do not concern violations of the CBA” requiring policies “in conformance to law.” This apparent doublespeak is HEA’s official response to my grievance. I invite anyone to offer a reasonable alternative summary.

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) conclude the above three questions do not merit any reply other than claim CTA “included all relevant legal citations” by stating “option to refuse” was placed into federal law to affirm employees cannot be kidnapped by employers for forced experimental injections, which was obviously already illegal.

Seriously, if anyone can explain CTA’s position other than protecting (union VP) from being tackled by Principal (name omitted) in the hall and forcibly injected with medical experiments whenever HUSD “mandates” for our “health,” I repeat: provide an alternative explanation.

Despite the above obvious and basic concerns, and more I’ve declined to pile-on, (President) declared “the matter is closed.”

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) now demonstrate full knowledge and agreement for CTA, HEA, and HUSD to change the crystal-clear legal letter and Nuremberg Code intent of “option to refuse” to be destroyed into “requirement for employment/enrollment.” This “New Normal ideal” is pushed further for dictatorial control in other US communities and nations that “option to refuse” means no participation in society without showing your passport of forever “booster shots” and acceptable “social credit score” for being an obedient citizen.

HEA Board Members should consider the power and responsibility for our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to “support and defend” US and CA Constitutions of limited government under Constitutional laws. Our Oath also means NOT to “support and defend” dictatorial and escalating “health orders” so outrageously unlimited by three definitive laws that (Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) must refuse to answer direct and obvious questions.

HEA’s leadership won’t answer the three questions, because they can’t. For example:

“You see, Carl, forced unpaid leave for teachers refusing experimental medicine isn’t force, duress, coercion, or any influence on your decision as protected by California Health and Safety Code § 24176 because…”

Go ahead and complete that sentence if you think these “health” “orders” are lawful.

HEA Board Members should consider the implications of informed and willful participation in apparent crimes that include over 17,000 US deaths and 100,000 serious injuries as “adverse events” after a Covid vaccine, according to the CDC.

Everyone will see the truth.

If I had to bet on what the truth is, I’d say this: HEA has chosen to wait for the reasonable person standard of law through a court case to force their move. After the truth is known, HEA will conclude that they had a duty to stand with these questions, and like most of the Emperor’s New Clothes crowd in the beginning, were too afraid and propagandized to look at parading naked power with their own eyes.

Look in the mirror, colleagues, and choose your personal position wisely.

If any Board Member would like to contact me privately for a personal briefing, express concerns, ask questions, and/or join me to demand answers to obvious and essential questions that HEA now willfully refuses to answer: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

When the truth comes, where do you want to be standing? Your basic choices:
Stand with me to force HUSD/CTA to answer these obvious questions. If they can’t or won’t provide reasonable written explanation how “health orders” conform to the three laws I cite, then HEA withdraws consent for prima facie-illegal policies until demonstrated as lawful. This has been my proposal since September, 2020.
Stand with HUSD/CTA/Governor Newsom and co-conspirators that everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision” can be destroyed into “participation in medical experiments is required to work or be enrolled in public school.” Stand for ignoring obvious questions while pretending to answer. Stand against our Oath to the US and CA Constitutions, and stand for 1984 “New Normal” dictatorial government for as long as “leaders” say we “need” “emergency” “mandated” “orders.”
Below is the full 3-part email chain referenced above with (President) communicating HEA’s position about requiring EUAs as conditions of employment:

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 7:02 AM Carl Herman wrote:

Dear (Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names),
CTA only addressed one of my three cited laws: Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), in argument that “option to refuse” only prevents kidnapping for forced injections at employers’ will, and allows all other consequences including employment termination and inability for future hire, true?
How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that EUAs uphold everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision”?
How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”)?
To help you understand what CTA wrote in “answer” to Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), here are three “option to refuse” analogies:
“Option to refuse” overtime: CTA assures us this means the district can’t lock teachers into their classrooms and make sure they work while videotaped. Teachers who exercise their “option to refuse” overtime are placed on unpaid leave for up to a year, and then fired. New hires must accept “mandated overtime” at the employer’s will as a condition of employment.
“Option to refuse” sexual harassment at work: CTA claims this only means the harasser can’t use physical force to restrain the target from escape. Those who exercise their “option to refuse” all other forms of sexual harassment (“anti-jokers”) must submit and pass a weekly “humor” test paid by our taxes. Test failure = “humor quarantine” for 10 days away from work, deducted from paid sick leave. Refusing both “mandated sexual humor” and the weekly “humor” test results in unpaid leave for a year, then employment termination.
“Option to refuse” district “mandated” pay cuts: CTA tells us we’re fully protected from the state and district having access to our bank accounts to deduct money directly from our accounts. Those who refuse to agree with pay cuts are placed on unpaid leave for up to a year, then their employment is terminated. New hires must agree to accept all future “emergency” pay cuts at the state, county, and/or district’s will as a condition for employment.
I will persist until I receive reasonable answers to obvious questions, and promise to fully share wherever HEA chooses to stand. I admonish that the reasonable person standard of law will not conclude that CTA “included all relevant legal citations” to address the three definitive laws I cite.

An independent, informed, and prudent citizenry will find that CTA and HEA avoided these questions, with the one CTA “answer” being in Orwellian-opposition to the letter and legal intent of “option to refuse” legislation to uphold the Nuremberg Code, and made explicit in California Health and Safety Code § 24176.

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names): I have never seen a more Orwellian “legal opinion” than what HEA currently upholds from CTA on the legal meaning of “option to refuse.” As I previously warned: CTA and NEA are apparently captured agencies promoting historically evil government and corporate positions to undermine workers’ unions.

Please confirm your choice by the end of the weekend that either the “matter is closed” or that we’re in agreement of what CTA actually claimed in their “relevant legal citations” requiring ethical follow-up with CTA.

Would it be helpful for me to ask the three legal teams overviewing this potential case to speak with you to confirm the crazy-ridiculous criminal CTA “answer” that is being “covered” by “lockdown states”’ governments and the same corporate media that “covers” forever illegal US Wars of Aggression “for freedom”?

My dear colleagues, this is an Emperor’s New Clothes condition that will be broken and seen for what it is, with my prediction that the false narrative will collapse within a month. While there is still limited time for you to make the right ethical choice to join my questions rather than oppose them behind tragic-comic non-answer obfuscations, your other option is to be slammed by outraged public response when the light of truth shines. I promise you that light will shine fully.

If you would like to chat with me about any of this to help make your choice clear, please ask.

Please respond by the end of the weekend, or I will include HEA Board Members again with this email, then inform all HHS teachers of HEA’s evolving position on our work conditions for teaching and learning. Btw: a position to join HUSD for my censorship will entwine HEA with further anti-American dictatorial and evil domination over protected speech asking OBVIOUS and essential questions.

Peace and Power of our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE,
Carl

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:46 PM Carl Herman wrote:

Thank you, (Union President, Executive Director’s names).

I respect HEA to come to their own conclusions about what is reasonable to assert in prima facie-violations of law.

Regarding CTA “included all relevant legal citations,” I’m only aware CTA addressed one of my three cited laws: claiming “option to refuse” an EUA medical product under Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) only serves as a reminder that kidnapping for forced experimental injections at the employer’s will is still not legal.

That’s what CTA claims in the passage I cited from their paper.

If we’re in agreement of what CTA seems to say, then CTA should explain more of their legal reasoning, especially in light of uncontested historical context that “option to refuse” referenced the Nuremberg Code. We should assume honorable intent, until proven otherwise.

If we’re not in agreement of what CTA seems to say, then provide your alternative meaning. Professionally, I can’t see any reasonable counter-explanation different from the one I provided.

(President) and/or (Executive Director): please point out how CTA “included all relevant legal citations” to address how required use of EUAs are within the other two laws I cited:
California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that each and every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”). Without transparent and verifiable hospital data, there is literally zero evidence for a lawfully-declared “emergency.”
The purpose of our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE is for just this occasion: a citizen check on apparent illegal government “orders” to receive full and reasonable written explanations how policies conform to law.
With all respect, HEA could have accepted my remedy proposed 13 months ago to simply have HUSD answer these questions I’m asking you to ask CTA.

It’s HUSD’s burden of proof.

If HUSD and CTA cannot provide our union members with reasonable explanations how their policies conform to three definitive laws I cited, then our union members deserve to know. True?

There’s still time for this solution.

Thank you,
Carl

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 2:22 PM (union President) wrote:

Hello Mr Herman

1. With regards to the grievance regarding Covid response practices - masks, vaccinations etc: I believe that HEA and CTA have provided a response from our/their perspective namely; these challenges do not concern violations of the CBA, and fall outside the duty of representation to which members are entitled. CTA has previously issued legal guidance to staff and local unions that such requirements are legal, and that guidance included all relevant legal citations. CTA has taken a public position in support of such requirements, with a supermajority of our members in support. With regards to your requested consultation with CTA counsel about these matters, we have been informed that CTA attorneys are available to staff and local unions for advice, but they do not engage with members outside of specific employment-related matters. They have declined your request for consultation. If you or any HEA member is facing serious adverse employment actions as a result of these requirements (see below for some limitations), you will be entitled to CTA legal representation in those matters.

I believe that the response addresses next steps within HEA and CTA's purview and the matter is closed.

2. (Active grievance status I can’t share by contract).

In hopes that clarifies HEA/CTA's positions and updates.

(Union President)

**

Update 2:

Text of my employee grievance requesting district explanation of EUA policies being legal given limits of three definitive laws: Now that the grievance has been concluded, I am contractually free to share:

Statement of Grievance: “I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.” ~ CDC Executive Secretary Dr. Amanda Cohn, (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices @1:14:40)
*Factual claims are linked with documentation in my 9/19/21 email to district and HEA leaderships*
HUSD and HEA must either cite the legal authority of their accepted policies for: 1) “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” requiring either EUA experimental PCR tests or experimental EUA injections, 2) unvaccinated student segregation outside school for 10 days for possible exposure to a “positive test,” and 3) considered mandatory student injections of experimental medicine, or renounce and rescind them because FDA requires that PCR “tests” and “vaccines” under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must inform “the option to accept or refuse” such products.

The US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths associated with Covid “vaccines.” In the last ~7 weeks, the current average is ~70 US deaths per day after these experimental injections (and here, here). The limits to EUA specifically protect people from such adverse effects of experimental medicine, AND MUST BE HONORED BY HUSD AND HEA through US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requirement of all people’s “option to accept or refuse.”

Under US Title 18 Section 242 “DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW,” HUSD and HEA are placed on legal notice that all in leadership positions who violate any member of our community’s legal option to accept or refuse experimental products are subject to legal penalties that include death sentence should any employee and/or student die as an adverse effect of an EUA product.

HUSD’s position for over a year of my questions and evidence is to tell employees and our community to “just follow orders under color of law.” HUSD policies of “health orders under color of law” violate ARTICLE 3 of HEA and HUSD’s contract: District powers for policy shall be limited “to the extent such specific and express terms are in conformance with law.” HUSD and HEA must respond to the reasonable issues raised in the Grievance to demonstrate conformance to law (not “just follow orders under color of law”), or accept the prima facie evidence documented here to conclude EUA products cannot be required as a condition of employment or student enrollment.

Evidence for ARTICLE 3 violation includes citation from my previous PLC report: When Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, he did so under the limit in California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case), or an imminent likelihood that hospitals’ patient numbers would be beyond their control. When “beyond control” hospitals never materialized, and without argument/evidence of further imminent threat, government emergency ordering authority is no longer authorized. Importantly, problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) do not equal “beyond control” hospitals.”

Superintendent (name omitted) claim from October 2, 2020 in response to a previous Grievance:

“At this time, the District is following governing protocols as referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in school age children specific to influenza pandemic episodes.

As you are aware, our county public health officer has issued public health orders in accordance with the Governor’s declarations of state of emergency as a result of a local health emergency. The health orders as discussed outline “Shelter in Place” and “Face Coverings” in the prevention of the spread of COVID-19.

The District believes it is properly following education code provisions to ensure health and safety for students and staff, as directed by local governance bodies appropriately.”

(Superintendent)/HUSD’s “legal explanation” is not reasonably “in conformance to law” because it is a lie of omission ignoring California Government Code 8558 (b), and US Titles 18 and 21. (Superintendent)/HUSD’s “just follow orders under color of law” also violates all California public school employees’ Oath upon employment because “health” “orders” outside the reasonable limit of “beyond control hospitals” are in prima facie-violations of many Constitutionally guaranteed Rights:
“I, (insert your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

Specific contract provision alleged to have been violated (cite source): ARTICLE 3: District powers for policy shall be limited “to the extent such specific and express terms are in conformance with law.”

Remedy Sought: HUSD and HEA must either cite the legal authority of their accepted policies for “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” requiring either EUA experimental PCR tests or experimental EUA injections, unvaccinated student segregation outside school for 10 days for possible exposure to a “positive test,” and considered mandatory student injections of experimental medicine, or renounce and rescind them because FDA requires that PCR “tests” and “vaccines” under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must inform “the option to accept or refuse” such products. This applicable law is US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). Title 21 of US Code governs all US food and drug policies under FDA.

HUSD’s previous “explanation” I cite above to “just follow orders under color of law” can certainly be restated and joined by HEA; and I admonish this choice as prima facie-illegal as explained and cited in this Statement of Grievance.

Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW specifically makes HUSD and HEA participation in these policies depriving our community their legal right “the option to accept or refuse” EUA products as prima facie criminal violations, and thereby not reasonably honoring ARTICLE 3 of our contract to be “in conformance with law.” HUSD and HEA must reasonably explain how policies forcing EUA products as a condition of employment and student attendance honor the legal limits I cite, and beyond the prima facie-criminal “just follow orders under color of law,” or renounce and rescind all HUSD EUA-related policies.

California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case) is REQUIRED for emergency ordering authority. “Beyond control” hospitals was never demonstrated, but we did get “official” lies of omission to choose no ongoing reporting of comprehensive and historical hospital data explained by independent experts using verifiable data. As I’ve previously communicated, all ~20 health professionals I’ve asked all report that all NorCal hospitals they know of have always been in full control. The facts include official lies of commission to illegally substitute problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) rather than “beyond control” hospitals as a justification for dictatorial authority. HUSD and HEA must reasonably explain how this legal limit is being honored, including the above facts, or join me in these questions to be forwarded to county and state (with our position they have 5 business days to deliver or HUSD downgrades “orders” to “official advice”). Unless HUSD and HEA demonstrate otherwise, the above is prima facie proof that HUSD “health orders” policies violate ARTICLE 3 for reasonable conformance to law.

Our mutual Oath requires all of us to support and defend limited government within our Constitutions. HUSD and HEA’s current positions of “just follow orders under color of law” is in Orwellian-opposition to our legal and Oath-bound responsibilities cited and proven here, unless HUSD and HEA can demonstrate otherwise (we teach all high school students in every California public high school US History class that “just follow orders under color of law” is an illegal “justification” for ordering authority). HUSD and HEA must defend that EUA “orders” as conditions of employment and student enrollment are within the above cited laws, or honor our Oaths to demand government officials issuing prima facie-illegal orders respond to our questions in writing (5 business days time limit, or we withdraw consent).

**

Update 3:

Principal discloses who is unvaccinated among our school’s employees: This might have been accidental by the principal, and I responded to those 23 employees (none responded back on the topic, except for one teacher unvaccinated but afraid of catching Covid with in-person school):

Dear Colleagues,
(Principal) has disclosed who is required to "test" among us.

As you may know, I have challenged HUSD and HEA since September 2020 about "health order" policy legality, with HUSD and HEA claiming "just follow orders" is legitimate authority to "order" employee required use of experimental medical products. These "orders" violate three definitive laws. HUSD/HEA/CTA all refuse to explain how "health orders" are lawful givin the limits of those laws. There are hundreds of lawsuits active, and I am in communication with three legal teams watching these developments as a potential case.

If you would like further details and/or would like to join me in challenge to escalating "health" "orders," please reply to my home email: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to "support and defend" limits to government "orders" has been entirely ignored by HUSD, HEA, and CTA; never addressed once in over a year of my extensive communications and three employee grievances (1 active).

On Oath,
Carl

**

Up next!

I hope the game will be changed with Red October political conclusion, but who knows?

Stay tuned for our next episode :)

**
I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History (also credentialed in Mathematics), with all economic factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences (and here). I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
**
Carl Herman worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: My work from 2011 to October 2017 is on Washington’s Blog, which the owner closed from Internet censorship in 2019, and here since. Work back to 2009 is censored by Examiner.com (blocked author pages: here, here). This means that some links in essays are inactive. If you’d like to see those articles, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the search box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA